Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.52 seconds)Section 70 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Guest Keen Williams Junior Management ... on 17 February, 1989
"Now upon these facts we are of opinion that there is evidence of a family arrangement to give effect to the Will which the Court ought to uphold. The defendants, if not bound by the reference to arbitration and the equity suit, have since they attained their majority, adopted and confirmed the act of their mother and guardian. In order to constitute a binding family arrangement it is not necessary that there should be any formal contract between the parties, and if sufficient motive for the arrangement is proved, the Court will not consider_ _the quantum of consideration. Williams v. Williams, (1867) 2 Ch App 294.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Girja Datt Singh vs Gangotri Datt Singh on 25 January, 1955
32. Counsel for the appellant challenges this finding of the lower court. He further states that the will Ext. A1 has not been properly proved, by examining an attestor, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act. One of the attestors was admittedly alive. Section 68 is mandatory, and even if there is no dispute in the written statement about its validity or genuineness, formal proof of the will by examining one of the attestors is necessary before it could be acted upon. Kamalakshy v. Madhavi Amma, 1980 Ker LT 493 is cited in support of this contention, it is also stated, placing reliance on the decision in Girja Datt v. Gangotri Datt, AIR 1955 SC 346, that it cannot be presumed, from the mere signatures of two persons in the will, that they had appended their signatures as attesting witnesses. Section 68 should be complied with in order that these two persons might be treated as attesting witnesses. Counsel stresses further that the original will is not forthcoming, but only a registration, copy Ext. A1. Since Pokken had revoked Ext. A1, the original must have been destroyed by him, and was not therefore available for production.
Section 372 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Pokhar Singh vs Mt. Dulari Kunwar on 11 February, 1930
Family arrangements are generally entered into for the purpose of the well being, and harmony, in the family. Thereby disputes are avoided, the honour of the family safeguarded and obligations morally binding on the members of a family are provided for. The factual existence of a dispute is not a sine qua non for the validity of a family arrangement or to justify its existence in view of the beneficial nature and effect of such arrangements. It was held in Pokhar Singh v. Mt. Dulari Kunwar, AIR 1930 Allahabad 687 following the decision in Williams v. Williams, (1867) 2 Ch App 294 that "for a family arrangement to be good and binding, it is not necessary that there should be a family dispute which had to be settled or composed". The fact that by their agreement, the parties have avoided the necessity for, or possibility of legal proceedings, is sufficient consideration to support it. Woodroffe and Ameer Ali in their Law of Evidence 13th Edition, Volume 3 at page 2896 summarise the law as follows: